Debate prep is in high gear

The New York Times ran a story yesterday about Mitt Romney's and Barack Obama's debate prep. They say that Romney's team is attempting to engineer moments in the debates that will provide an opportunity for "zingers" that Romney has memorized and been practicing since August.His strategy includes luring the president into appearing smug or evasive about his responsibility for the economy.

At the same time, they report, Romney's people are trying to make sure Mitt doesn't come across as a "scold."

His sparring partner, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, channeling Mr. Obama, has gone after him repeatedly, to the point of being nasty. The goal is to get Mr. Romney agitated and then teach him how to keep his composure, look presidential.

As for Obama's preparation, his side is trying to get him to cut his answers down, "give crisper" explanations, warning him that "no one wants a professor, they want a president."

I've been saying this for a while that Obama's strategy would be to get Mitt annoyed as Romney looks like a privileged jerk whenever he thinks anyone is getting in his face. He gets that "how dare you" look, like he can't believe someone with his wealth and standing has to put up with this.

As for Obama, debates are not primarily about oratory, which means any assessment of his mediocre debating skills suffers when compared to his significant oratorical skill. The more he pontificates and potentially bores people, the more people might wonder what all the excitement was about in the first place. His people are right. Keep it short.

Since sports metaphors seem to be the thing in discussing these debates, I'll offer these: Romney is behind and needs to press in order to have a chance. When you press, you make mistakes. Obama is ahead and only need to play prevent defence to keep things where they are. But, as we all know, prevent defense prevents you from winning if you forget to play the kind of game that put you in the lead to begin with.

Romney Shrugged

By Capt. FoggOne casual observation I suspect of having some merit is that people
who complain a lot about some failing in others are covering up
something similar in themselves. Perhaps those who make such a constant
noise about large numbers of our countrymen being freeloaders while
covering themselves in self-adulation would give weight to the
conjecture. Are they really getting a raw deal?One
certainly does hear more than enough fiction from the Republican
Party's candidates about welfare queens driving Cadillacs and the
stifling of initiative that comes from subsidized school lunches and
perhaps a bit less about subsidies for business interests and of course,
now we have that abominable new straw man, the 47%.It's
an American habit, and not just a Conservative habit, to dismiss, and
often angrily dismiss any discussion of factual support for political
arguments and particularly examples of how our assertions fail to be
born out in other countries, so of course those who support Mr. Romney
for reasons known only to their subconscious minds, that 47% of
Americans do not make enough money at present to pay Federal Income Tax
are happy to frame that in terms of government dependency. Of
course, as with most things you hear from Romney and Ryan, it's not
true at all, finely crafted as the rhetoric might be and as effective in
pushing that American middle class self pity hot button. As Ezra Klein pointed
out in the Washington Post not long ago, the taxpayer supporting a
family on $40,000 a year may not pay Federal Income Tax, but he's paying
tax on every dollar he makes while the fortunate one ( excuse me, the
selfless job creator) making $4,000,000 is likely paying less than 35%
on the whole chalupa. As Klein says, it's phrased that way to make it
seem only fair to give a break to those heavily burdened 'job
creators.' What it's not supposed to do is to remind you that
the $40,000 'freeloader' is paying payroll tax on every dime up to
around $100,000. So when you look at the total family tax bill, it
seems quite a different story. The numbers make liars out of a lot of
people and the burden is being shouldered by the rich and poor only it's
the poor and the struggling middle who can't pay their bills because of
it. Taxes aren't cutting into the caviar budget, they're making it
harder to buy the canned tuna and hamburger helper; harder to pay for
college, harder to pay those ridiculous medical bills and harder to buy
those new cars and appliances and houses that are the real job creators.

Not
47 percent
paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans
paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income. Where are the
freeloaders? Where are all those hordes of freeloaders eating up the
hard earned dollars of the job creating Galts? The taxpayer earning a
hundred grand pays more than the one making over a million and the
poverty stricken have to pay 20% of their miserable $25K all of which
they need to spend to stay alive. Is it difficult to refrain from bad
language and malediction when listening to such damaging lies? You bet.
So they're lying of course and as usual. The
total tax burden is far more equally distributed than the Republicans
want you to believe and one might make a case that the people crying
loudest about freeloaders are getting a better deal then they would like
to admit. Perhaps there's some hidden guilt involved, perhaps not.

There
is no more factual support for calling nearly half of us freeloaders
dependent upon government subsidy than there is for Ryan's 3 hour
marathon times and in reply to that cynical bumper sticker I saw
yesterday sneering "4 more years? Are you out of your mind?"
Why no sir, I'm not and I'd remind you that neither intelligence nor
honesty are more equitably distributed in the world than money.

Mitt Romney... what the hell?

So just how badly are things going for Romney? His favorability rating is now lower than George W. Bush's. As Dan Amira writes at New York (in a post from which the above photo is taken -- the last time they were photographed together, over four years ago):

In what seems like an ominous sign of just how bad things have gotten
for Mitt Romney, a Bloomberg News poll shows that he's actually less popular now than George W. Bush.
This is the same George W. Bush, you may recall, who was a no-show at
the GOP convention, hasn't made single appearance on the campaign trail,
and announced his endorsement of Romney through a pair of closing elevator doors
— all to prevent his supposed toxicity from rubbing off on the GOP
nominee. It's like avoiding garlic because you don't want your breath to
smell, only to discover that your breath naturally smells like wet dog.

To be fair to Bush, though, his favorability has risen significantly since he left the presidency, mainly because... well, because he's receded almost entirely from the spotlight, and because it's better not to be a politician if what you're looking for is popularity.Still... lower than Dubya? And even then, how many of those 43 percent actually like him? Isn't it just that he's the Republican candidate for president and that partisan Republicans are saying they like him simply because he isn't Obama? What his real favorability rating? 25 percent? Is even that too high?What's telling is that Republicans are already doing the "isn't wasn't me" routine, seeking to point the blame elsewhere, anywhere and everywhere else, for the fact that Romney is their candidate -- and a lousy candidate at that, the worst, I wrote a couple of days ago, since Alf Landon in '36. And as Jon Chait notes, no one really wanted him to win:

So, anyway, whose idea was it to nominate Romney? The basic
answer is: nobody's. It's true that Romney managed to persuade many
conservative activists to support him during, and in the immediate
aftermath of, his 2008 campaign. But by 2010, conservatives had moved
farther right and left Romney behind. It's not as if the Establishment
were pining away for him, either. Most mainstream Republicans spent the
cycle pining away for another candidate to jump into the race.The real split during the primary occurred between conservatives
who reluctantly fell behind Romney because they had no alternative
(which is to say, the alternatives were such characters as Michele
Bachmann, comatose Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Rick
Santorum) and those who were willing to support one or all of those
characters rather than Romney. Nobody, except Jennifer Rubin and Matt
Drudge, actually displayed any real enthusiasm for the man. He won by
default.

And so here he is, spinning his wheels on the campaign trail, showing signs of desperation, falling in the polls, looking utterly spent, and sporting a lower-than-Bush favorability rating. Needless to say, things aren't going well and aren't looking good. And even though his party has gone completely crazy, if Mitt himself wants to pin some blame, he need only look in the mirror.

Behind the Ad: The last nail?

What's going on: This is another ad that makes use of Romney's comments on the 47%. It's called "My Job," and it is undoubtedly one of the most effective and devastating ads of this campaign. It's just over 30 seconds long and it says more about Mitt Romney than months of political spin could possibly convey.

Greg Sargent at The Washington Post put it up and, as you will see, it's Mitt Romney's words over images of "veterans, workers, families with children, and other 47 percenters."

The enemy of Mitt Romney is Mitt Romney himself

To thine own self be true... and to other super-rich pricks in Boca Raton.

Jon Chait now admits that he was wrong in thinking, initially, that Romney wouldn't be severely hurt, if hurt at all, by his "47%" remarks.It's okay, Jon, we forgive you. Your reasoning was sound, even if it was likely you were going to be proven wrong -- it was just so clear that the remarks would resonate, that the narrative of Romney as a privileged rich douchebag out to help his own socio-economic kind would be confirmed beyond any doubt, and that the Obama campaign would make good use of them in ad after ad.But let's move on. In "The Poetic Justice of Romney's Self-Immolation" at Daily Intel, Chait explains just how the remarks are severely hurting Romney, "reinforc[ing] the worst stereotypes voters have of Romney" and "destroy[ing] Romney's fundamental credibility. Again, you could have seen this coming, but it's good to have it confirmed. "He was trailing narrowly, but in a polarized electorate with a tiny number of undecided voters. Not only has he turned some of those undecided voters against him, but he's blown up his bridge to reach them."

And this is where justice comes in. "Romney has spent the last five years refashioning himself in the image of his party, discarding his most decent elements along the way, only to be caught in the end speaking bluntly." More immediately, he has spent a good deal of the campaign lying about both his Republican primary opponents and President Obama, and being generally dishonest about who he is, what he stands for, and what he would do as president. And here he was being himself, being honest. Or so it would seem. Even if he was just pandering to the rich people in Boca the way he panders to every constituency he encounters, he was being himself by being shamelessly opportunistic, by being utterly without principle. But I think it's fair to say, from all that we've seen, that the real Romney is a largely unprincipled rich guy out for himself and his kind. Maybe there's more to him than what came across in Boca, but we have every reason to suspect not.And, really, he deserves what he's getting:

And then, finally, there is a poetic justice in the substance of Romney's self-immolation. This is not a random gaffe, a joke gone bad, or even a terrible brain freeze. It is Romney exposed for espousing a worldview that is at the heart of his party's mania. The idea he summed up at that fund-raiser was a combination of right-wing fever dreams I've been analyzing since Obama took office — the Ayn Randism, the fact-free class warfare, the frantic rage at a changing America. The Republican Party is going down because its candidate was seen advocating exactly the beliefs that make the party so dangerous and repellant.

Justice indeed.

Now we just need to make sure he and his reprehensible views, along with his reprehensible party, go down big in November.

Win big

We're down to forty days before the election. The polls are starting to show Barack Obama solidifying his lead, and Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight is giving Mitt Romney less than a 20% chance. We're getting beyond the point where it's hard to imagine a way for this election to turn out any other way, even if the debates that start next week are a disaster.

I am hoping that this will be a decisive, wide-margin — more than five points — win for Obama. I don't want him just to win, I want him to win big.

That will accomplish two things: 1) it will make the Republicans who claim he somehow stole the election look like the deranged loons that they are, and 2) it will demoralize, shame, and humiliate the pompous, arrogant, and snotty bullies at least for one or two days before they rise up once again from their swamp to gridlock Washington and, with any luck, go for impeachment citing the fact that Mr. Obama failed to put his hand over his heart once while the band played the national anthem. Or something.

I have no doubt that the GOP will try to discredit the election. As Steve M. points out, that's the background for all the "unskewed" polling that the righties are saying shows Romney with a lead in the polls when you configure them the way they like. (I think it involves closing one eye and twisting your head at a certain angle. Try it; it works.) The day after the election they will then claim that voters were mislead by the polls, the RINOs gave up, and of course the media was in the tank for Obama all along:

See, they don't have to allege actual funny business in the voting to say that Obama should have lost. They can also say that Obama would have lost if the media hadn't been in the tank for him. Then they don't have to scour the nation for allegedly dead voters and allegedly dubious vote totals. And the margin of victory doesn't matter — Obama could win by 8 or 9 points and keep Romney to under 200 electoral votes and they can still say the results aren't legit, because the public was brainwashed.

Which brings me to my second point. The right wing needs to be seriously beaten, humiliated, shamed, chastised, denigrated, and bumfuzzled. And it has to be done with a determination and resolution that will leave no doubt as to who did it to them. None of this humble-in-victory crap; I want the winners to dance in the street and make the losers — especially Karl Rove and that little snot Ralph Reed — cry for their mamas.

I know it will not change their behavior one bit. Newt Gingrich will not go away as long as there is a book to be shilled and a wife to prop him up. The Republicans in Congress will dig in their heels and refuse to pass anything other than gas. In fact, if the Republicans have any hold on power, they will cling to it down to the last talon. But in doing so, they will only make themselves look that much more fringe-bound and marginalized, and at some point they will be so far into the woods that it will take a generation for them to come back from purgatory. Bullies and grifters deserve nothing less, and I want them to feel the humiliation and scorn with every fiber of their soulless beings.

Landslide? Fight even harder!

By Infidel753Even dwellers in the right-wing alternate-reality bubble are getting hard-pressed to deny it: the polls are looking very good for our side these days. The RCP average this morning shows Obama up 4% nationally, boosted by a Gallup tracker lead of 6%. Recent data have him leading 52%-43% in Pennsylvania, 53%-43% in Ohio, 49%-45% in North Carolina, 52%-43% in Nevada, 52%-41% in Wisconsin, 48%-40% in Minnesota, 54%-42% in Michigan (and that's Rasmussen!), 51%-44% in Iowa, 50%-46% in Colorado, and 53%-44% in all-important Florida. Our Senate candidates lead 52%-40% in Wisconsin, 49%-43% in Pennsylvania, 53%-39% in Florida, 48%-42% in Connecticut (yes, that one had been close earlier), 50%-40% in Ohio, 48%-44% in Nevada, 53%-37% in Michigan. Massachusetts looks close, but in the end I can't see that state re-electing Brown. The Republicans are getting so desperate they're even starting to rehabilitate Todd "legitimate rape" Akin. An Obama popular-vote margin bigger than 2008's, 350 electoral votes, and an enlarged Senate majority suddenly seem like real possibilities. Some even dream of re-taking the House, though that remains unlikely.

So does this mean we can relax? Sorry, but this is no time to stop being on guard against complacency. Even if you think victory is inevitable, the margin matters.

If a real landslide is in reach, we need to fight all the harder to make sure we get it. Obama will still be president whether he gets 270 electoral votes or 350, 51% of the popular vote or 55% -- but in the latter cases he'll have a stronger hand to play in appealing to the public against Republican obstructionism. A Senate majority that includes Elizabeth Warren will be give the party a different character than one that doesn't. A badly-mauled Republican party is more likely to be weakened by internal recrimination and infighting than one that just barely lost.

Slavery, votes for women, and interracial marriage were once genuinely controversial issues. After thumping defeats, the reactionary side on each of those issues faded away and ceased to be part of the national conversation. That's what real victory looks like. If 2012 is a chance to administer another thumping defeat to the bad guys, let's do it.(Cross-posted at Infidel753.)

Behind the Ad: Barack Obama explains it all to you

By Richard K. Barry(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.)Who: Obama-Biden campaign.Where: New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, and Colorado.What's going on: As the Associated Press writes, "President Barack Obama is pitching a broad economic argument to voters before next week's debate." He's looking right into the camera, talking about his economic plan that "will create 1 million manufacturing jobs, cut oil imports and hire thousands of new teachers."In the ad, he introduces a new campaign theme: "economic patriotism."As USA Todayexplains:

"During campaign season, you always hear a lot about patriotism," Obama said at an outdoor amphitheater near the Virginia coast. "Well, you know what, it's time for a new economic patriotism -- and economic patriotism rooted in the belief that growing our economy begins with a strong and thriving middle class."

I can't help but think that Mitt Romney opened the door with his 47 percent comment, and Barack Obama is walking right through it with ideals that speak to the possibility of a united country, in which caring about other people is a mark of patriotism.Maybe we always needed Mitt Romney to show us what we didn't want in a president.

Romney in '85: Bain objective was to buy up companies and "harvest them at a significant profit"

By Michael J.W. StickingsIn other words, to "identify potential value and hidden value in a particular investment candidate" and then to do whatever it takes to maximize profit," including outsourcing jobs, without much regard, if any, for the human costs of this "business."Look, I get it, this is what a great deal of capitalism is about, and it goes on all the time. What Bain did under Romney, and what it does today, isn't anything special, however devastating. But this serves to remind us that Romney's much-touted business experience isn't business in the sense of making things and selling them but business in the sense of making ruthless investments and profiting off them at all cost. It certainly doesn't qualify him as a "job creator," let alone as someone who can handle the huge challenges of managing the U.S. economy.But at least he was just being honest, way back when before he sold whatever was left of his soul to run for national office as a Republican. And that makes this clip so much revealing as refreshing. It's just weird to see Romney telling the truth and being so open about himself and his objectives.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Now it's Romney's turn to manage debate expectations

Why do they bother? Why do they waste energy saying that big bad President Obama is such a great talker that Mitt Romney will be lucky to finish the debate without soiling himself? I know. That's what they all do. I just wish they wouldn't.

Here's the latest from longtime Romney advisor Beth Myers, as reported by CNN, in a memo she sent to the network:

President Obama is "widely regarded as one of the most talented political communicators in modern history."

"This will be the eighth one-on-one presidential debate of his political career. For Mitt Romney, it will be his first."

"Four years ago, Barack Obama faced John McCain on the debate stage. According to Gallup, voters judged him the winner of each debate by double-digit margins, and their polling showed he won one debate by an astounding 33-point margin."

Myers argues that Obama will "use his ample rhetorical gifts and debating experience to one end: attacking Mitt Romney."

"We fully expect a 90-minute attack ad aimed at tearing down his opponent," she writes in the memo.

Pushing back against emerging conventional wisdom, Myers concludes that the debates will not, in fact, decide the election: "It will be decided by the American people," she says.

One of the reasons the debates won't decide anything is that, I suspect, this bear is already decided.

My guess is that the debates will be a big yawn. Obama won't give Romney a chance for anything close to a knockout blow and, even if he did, Romney is too plodding to take advantage of it. How's that for a boxing metaphor?

Another guess is that the best Romney can do, and maybe this is the point of managing expectations, is that some voters will come away thinkings Mitt didn't entirely suck. But I'll bet you $10,000 the debates won't change a thing.

This can't be right

By Mustang Bobby(Ed. note: For some right-wing reaction to this right-wing allegation, see Dear Leader Rush (who thinks most of the polls are bogus) vs. Erick Erickson, who looks remarkably sane by comparison, even if he too thinks the race is closer than the polls suggest. -- MJWS)

Some Republicans can't believe that Mitt Romney is behind in the polls. It's just not possible. How could he be losing to That Man? There's got to be something wrong.Why of course! It's not the candidate; it's the polls!

They argue many mainstream polls skew in Obama's favor because of sample sizes that base 2012 turnout projections on 2008, when Democrats — and Hispanics, blacks and young voters in particular — turned out in record numbers."I don't think [the polls] reflect the composition of what 2012 is going to look like," Romney pollster Neil Newhouse said in an interview.Frustration that polls are skewed in favor of Obama has escalated among some on the right in recent weeks. One website, www.unskewedpolls.com, recently began re-weighting the mainstream polls to closer track the demographic assumptions of conservative polling outlet Rasmussen Reports. The re-weighted polls all show Romney ahead in the race, with leads of between 3 and 11 percentage points.

It's perfectly understandable that the Romney folks want to deny reality; polling is a tricky business and there's lots of room for error — which is why they include the "margin of error" in their results. But when you have every major polling organization showing pretty much the same results, then chances are it's the way things are. Besides, if the tables were turned and Mr. Romney was ahead in all the major polling, the Republicans would be lauding the pollsters for their unbiased and scientific work. (For the GOP, science in your favor is flawless, but the jury is still out on evolution and climate change.)(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Behind the Ad: Sen. Claire McCaskill goes after crazy Todd Akin

What's going on: Todd Akin, whom many Republicans want to just go away, has decided to stay in the race for the Missouri Senate seat. Now that the deadline has passed for him to get out, incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill is on the attack with a new ad.

It's a compendium of hardcore right-wing statements made by Akin, including reference to the "legitimate rape" comment.

Once upon a time, McCaskill would have been hard-pressed to keep this seat. But I can't imagine Akin could be competitive with so much of his party disowning him. All I can say is that if something goes terribly wrong and he wins this seat, it will be a sad day for the country.

By the way, I notice that the homepage on McCaskill's campaign website announces that "TODD AKIN IS OFFICIALLY CLAIRE'S OPPONENT," all in caps. Someone's happy.

It's the Great Pumpkin, Angela Merkel!

Guest post by Frank MoraesEd. note: This is Frank's second guest spot for us in just three days. You can find his first, on this past weekend's 60 Minutes interviews with Obama and Romney, here. The post below is a look at austerity in Europe, and specifically at the situation in Spain, and, for us, it's a nice break from our wall-to-wall election coverage. Yes, lest we forget, there are other important things going on in the world.We'll be featuring more of Frank's blogging here, but do also check out his very fine blog, Frankly Curious, for a great deal more. -- MJWSFrank Moraes is a freelance writer and editor with much too much education. He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, where it is really hard to be a liberal, and writes the blogFrankly Curious.
**********

Things are getting out of hand in Spain. The people are rightly unhappy about the recent austerity deal. It's very simple. The Spanish government -- like most governments -- has debt. Because they don't have their own currency, potential lenders are concerned that Spain will default on this debt. Thus, interest rates on Spanish government bonds are ridiculously high (almost 7% a couple of months ago). This problem could easily be solved by the European Central Bank (ECB) guaranteeing the Spanish debt. But the ECB will only do this (more or less) in return for $50 billion in austerity -- budget cuts and tax increases.

Here's the problem and the reason that the people are angry: Spanish unemployment is 25%. These austerity measures will only make this worse. How do we know this: Ireland, Italy, Greece, Portugal, United Kingdom, Spain. Oh, and the United States. And Keynes. And the Great Depression. You get the idea.The German government and the ECB have been pushing an idea that was really stupid 3 years ago but now is just loony: if these troubled economies slash the size of their governments, businesses will magically have "confidence" and start hiring. Paul Krugman has come up with the idea that these people believe in the "Confidence Fairy." It's kind of like the Tooth Fairy, but without the evidence to support it. Think: the Great Pumpkin. The Confidence Fairy will rise up out of the periphery giving a booming economy to all good countries.As with most of economics there are lots of feedbacks in these decisions. Because Spain doesn't have its own currency, fears of default push up interest rates, and this in turn requires more borrowing. Cutting government spending causes the economy to shrink, the smaller economy provides fewer tax revenues, and this in turn makes the government cut more spending. The only way this works is if the Confidence Fairy makes an appearance. But just like in every year's rerun of It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown, she never does.Here in the United States, most of the coverage on this issue is from the German perspective. It is highly moralistic. It goes like this: GIPSI (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and Italy) borrowed too much money during the good times and so now they need to tighten their belts and tough out the recession. (25% unemployment!) The problem is that this is all wrong.Economics is not a morality play. It doesn't matter if the GIPSI behaved badly before; they're bad situation now is hurting everyone. But the fact of the matter is that of those 5 countries, only Greece's government acted badly. Spain (and others) had a budget surplus going into this recession.What happened was that banks in Germany (primarily) thought that the EU's shared currency meant that loans to GIPSI were as safe as loans to Germany or France. When the recession hit and these countries had trouble paying their loans, the German bankers freaked out. Now, we're supposed to wag a finger in the faces of GIPSI: "You shouldn't have taken out those loans!" But somehow everyone seems to forget that it is the bankers and not the borrowers who are supposed to police the loans.We've seen this same kind of thinking here in America. Rick Santelli famously started the Tea Party movement with his rant about how good people like him were being forced to pay for the bad loans other people took out. Even apart from all we know about predatory lending, this is a ridiculous contention. Parents know that if they allow it, their children will eat cookies to the point of illness. Similarly, bankers know that people want to borrow more than they can afford. Or at least they should know this.Whether it is the Tea Party or the German government, there is no place for moralizing when cleaning up an economic mess. But of course, this idea worked half way. There was no moralizing about saving the banks. In fact, after saving them, nothing was done to stop them having to be saved in the future. But when it came to saving homes and jobs, well, those people got what they deserved.The people in Spain are fighting back. I wish them well.¡Viva España!AfterwordDemocracy Now! has a good story about what's going on in Spain from the people's perspective. It contains some interesting reporting like the fact that after foreclosure and eviction, people are still held responsible for their loans. Wow.

Three little words

I've been doing this blogging thing long enough that I'm in the
middle of my third presidential election, and I’m beginning to see that
certain memes start to pop up at certain stages in those campaigns. For
instance, as October and the first Monday of that month approaches, we
are reminded of the fact that far beyond the legacy of four or eight
years of a president are at stake thanks to three little words: The
Supreme Court.

Ronald Reagan has been dead for lo these many years, and George H.W.
Bush has long since gone back to Houston, but their work lives on in
their appointments to the Court, including Antonin Scalia and Clarence
Thomas. George W. Bush's choice for Chief Justice, John Roberts, is a
comparatively young man (he's younger than me) and could be on the Court
for another twenty-five years. And as we have all learned, for good or
ill, the Court and its rulings can have a transformational impact on
every part of our lives.

Barack Obama has already appointed two new justices; Elena Kagan and
Sonia Sotomayor. Time, tide, and the actuarial tables predict that he
will get to appoint a few more if he's re-elected. And that has some on
the right understandably attentive:

"The potential impact of the next president on the
Supreme Court is immense," said Carrie Severino, the chief counsel and
policy director at the Judicial Crisis Network, a right-of-center
advocacy group. "There could easily be three nominations during the next
term... Most people expect there to be at least one vacancy."

She said if Obama were re-elected and got three more high court
nominations, "that would put him in the position of having nominated the
majority of the justices on the Supreme Court. That's an incredible
influence over the way the court shapes American society."

Keep that in mind the next time you hear about a survey scoring the "likeability" of a presidential candidate; sure, you can think about who
you'd like to have a beer with, but your drinking buddy could also be
the one who picks the folks who decide the future of a lot of important
issues such as campaign finance, marriage equality, and reproductive
rights for the next fifty years.

Behind the Ad: MItt Romney loves everyone equally. He really does.

What's going on: Mitt Romney is doing his best to contain the damage done by remarks that he doesn't give a damn about the 47 percent who will never vote for him, the same 47 percent he thinks consider themselves victims.

In the ad, called "Too Many Americans," Romney looks right at the camera and gets all soft and gooey as he tells voters how much he cares about them -- all of them.

If the more recent swing in the polls is any indication, Romney's previous comments did a whole lot of damage and he is scrambling to reverse course as best he can.

As Greg Sargent writes:The ad also represents a significant reframing of Romney's message. The previous, backward-looking frame — "are you better off than you were four years ago?" — is replaced in this ad with the forward-looking assertion that we can't afford another four years like the last four. So the investment in the new spot suggests an admission that the previous framing failed and a heavy bet on this new messaging as his best shot of salvaging his candidacy.In politics, as in life, when you lose credibility, everything you say just digs the hole deeper. Keep talking, Mitt.

Morning Joe on yet another embarrassing Romney moment: "Sweet Jesus."

By Michael J.W. StickingsMustang Bobby put this up at his place yesterday. If you missed it, it's well worth watching, not just for the pathetic Romney embarrassing himself yet again but for Joe Scarborough's telling reaction of incredulity and resignation.Which raises the question: Romney is the worst major-party presidential candidate since _______ ?

Is it Dukakis? (I think Romney's worse, but it's close.) Mondale? (At least he had some gravitas.) McGovern? (Maybe, but at least he had a ton of progressive credibility.)

So how far back do we have to go?After all, the only thing keeping this race even somewhat close is the struggling economy, and that has nothing to do with Romney. Imagine how far ahead Obama would be if the economy were even just a tiny bit stronger at the moment.So maybe Willkie in 1940, a business-oriented moderate who had to secure the support of right-wing isolationists in the GOP (yup, sounds a bit like Romney). But no. He, at least, was respectable out on the campaign trail, even if he stood little chance against FDR.

I'll go with Landon in 1936, another business-oriented type and by all accounts a terrible campaigner and generally inept politician. But even then, he didn't constantly embarrass himself, unlike Romney. He just didn't campaign for long stretches at a time, including for two months after he won the Republican nomination, and FDR crushed him in the election. He won only Maine and Vermont, losing the Electoral College vote 523 to 8.

The closing door

By CarlNot that I believe Mitt Romney ever stood a chance of beating President Obama, for myriad reasons, but I think you can stick a fork in him right now, and we still have five weeks left:

Despite his protestations to the contrary, Mitt Romney currently appears to be losing the presidential election, and his problems are especially acute in Ohio, the state no Republican has ever won the presidency without. A new New York Times poll Wednesday put Romney a shocking 10 points behind Obama; even the most optimistic Democrats have a hard time believing the president, who won Ohio by less than 5 points in 2008, could win the state by 10 this time around. The most optimistic Republicans, for their part, do not believe any polls at all these days, since, in a highly suspicious coincidence, they are nearly unanimous in showing Romney behind.

Seeing the candidates campaign in the state back-to-back, as I did, neatly illustrated the divergent mood between the two camps -- one flailing, one on a confident roll. The Obama campaign is clicking on all cylinders, consistent, smoothly choreographed and slickly produced; Romney's appearances are a jumble, his tone of voice pleading to the point of desperation, his speech constantly improvised from a Frankenstinian array of spare messaging parts, never quite gelling into a focused whole. Obama's crowds are a Bieber-like fan-throng; Romney's are only passionately angry. A visitor from another planet who didn't speak a word of any human language could tell which one was up and which was down.

"It's time for a new economic patriotism, rooted in the belief that growing our economy begins with a strong, thriving middle class," Obama says in conclusion. "Read my plan. Compare it to Governor Romney's and decide for yourself."

In a nation that is struggling to achieve even a moderate reduction in unemployment numbers, that a whole cadre of wealth remains in offshore bank accounts and investments is treasonous. Obama doesn't come out and say this, but it's in between the lines: a strong, thriving middle class doesn't have access to Bermuda hedge funds, Caymans private equity funds, or Swiss bank accounts, and a weak middle class doubly not.

Romney had seven years, literally, to uncouple himself from those investments (or at least dump them into a blind trust) because he had to know they'd be an issue and defending by saying "you're just jealous" doesn't change the fact that mobsters and other criminals use those same facilities for the same reason: to hide money.

Add to that the very real gaffes Romney commits on a weekly basis, from the primaries all the way to this past week, and you have the makings of a real sewer hole of a campaign.

Indeed, Romney's stench is so palpable, it's even infesting apparent jokes. This is the same benchmark the McCain-Palin campaign breached when Tina Fey satired "I can see Russia from my house!" It wasn't a Palin quote, but it described the situation so accurately that it stuck.

Oh yes. It's not that Romney has been a terrible campaigner or that Romney was just a bad choice, no, it's the pollsters who somehow have conspired to show Romney flailing like a Little Leaguer facing CC Sabathia.

Because goodness knows, there's no competition to get it right and earliest! The long term effects of this kind of conspiring would be not only tragic, it would be actionable by any shareholders.

Here we have another example of the Republican anathema to science and mathematics. For the GOP, God's poll tells them otherwise because they pray nightly for a miracle.

I'm afraid that door is closing too. About the only miracle that could possibly save Romney is during the debates, where Barack Obama unmasks as Osama bin Laden. And even then, Romney would still trail by three in Ohio.

New polls: Obama now crushing Romney in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida

By Michael J.W. StickingsAccording to
Quinnipiac, Obama is crushing Romney in these key states -- two of which, Ohio and Florida, tend to swing, while the third, Pennsylvania, is solidly Democratic at the presidential level.-- FLORIDA: Obama 53 - Romney 44.-- OHIO: Obama 53 - Romney 43.-- PENNSYLVANIA: Obama 54 - Romney 42. And it's looking even worse for Romney when you dig a little deeper:

Voters in each state see President Obama as better than Gov. Romney to handle the economy,
health care, Medicare, national security, an international crisis and immigration. Romney ties or inches
ahead of the president on handling the budget deficit.

And Obama has expanded his lead significantly in Ohio and Florida over the course of the last month. Republicans, of course, are saying that polls like these are biased against them. I say let them cling to their delusions.

Off balance

Mr. Brooks muses on the two differing theories of modern conservatism and finally admits that the loons have taken over the asylum:

It's not so much that today's Republican politicians reject traditional, one-nation conservatism. They don't even know it exists. There are few people on the conservative side who'd be willing to raise taxes on the affluent to fund mobility programs for the working class. There are very few willing to use government to actively intervene in chaotic neighborhoods, even when 40 percent of American kids are born out of wedlock. There are very few Republicans who protest against a House Republican budget proposal that cuts domestic discretionary spending to absurdly low levels.The results have been unfortunate.

Actually, they've been predictable. There's a tendency in any political movement to look for a scapegoat for the problems of the world and blame them, but the Republicans have made it their party platform for the last fifty years. The switch to simplistic economic conservatism, along with a healthy dose of moralistic scolding, has turned a lot of them into grifters, torturers, and intellectual sock-puppets. That's what happens to people with power without discipline or a sense of duty to others beyond your own tribe.

Todd Akin makes it official. He's in to stay.

The crazy man running for Senate in Missouri under the GOP banner, Todd Akin, is staying in the race. You'll recall that Akin got in a heap of trouble by trying to distinguish between legitimate rape and that other kind. A bunch of media types showed up at an Akin's press conference in St. Louis yesterday thinking he might throw in the towel at the 11th hour, but that was simply not to be:

"I was given a trust" in the August Republican primary that put him on the ballot, Akin told about 200 enthusiastic supporters in a ballroom at the downtown Renaissance. "...A number of people have asked me, 'Are you quitting?'... I don't believe that is really my decision."

He added, to heavy cheering from the crowd: "I have a purpose going into November and that's to replace Claire McCaskill."

This won't make his own party very happy. Everyone from Mitt Romney on down pressed him to get out so he wouldn't do any more damage to the brand, but it seems old Todd is his own man. Stupid bastard.

How extreme do you have to be when this version of the GOP thinks you're too far out there?

It's a very conservative state, Missouri, and Akin could still win. That's true. But it won't do the rest of the Republican Party a lot of good to defend his Neanderthal views for the next several weeks, though I doubt it will have that much impact on the rest of the country.